of production, they provide the conservative with much justification for his allegations of inefficiency against Australian democracy. The moral value of State Socialism lies in the implicit recognition which the policy of nationalisation conveys of the duty of the State to care for the interests of the whole people. The extreme backwardness of municipal enterprise in Australia bears the less favourable testimony that local government has not been developed to any great extent. Australia suffers badly from over-centralised government, with the consequences of a lack of local civic spirit and over-concentration of the population in a few large capitals. Nearly half the people of New South Wales and Victoria live in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne, which are amongst the largest in the world.

The vital statistics, as might be expected, clearly reflect the social superiority of Australia over other countries. The comparative statistics of the birthrate, death-rate and infant mortality given below are remarkably favourable to the Commonwealth. As in most other countries, the birth-rate has fallen in recent years-a concomitant of prosperity and a rising standard of comfort.

The following are the statistics of the birth-rate (number of births per 1000 of mean population), death-rate (number of deaths per 1000 of mean population), and infantile mortality (number of deaths under 1 year per 1000 births registered) :

Changes During the War.

In common with all other countries, Australia has experienced a considerable change in outlook during the war. Her sense of nationhood has been greatly intensified by the glorious achievements of the Anzacs in Gallipoli, Palestine, France, and many a more obscure field. Not only is her pride in her splendid army justified, but her whole policy of raising the people to a high level of comfort has been magnificently endorsed by the qualities exhibited by her soldiers. Never in history has there been so convincing a demonstration of the efficacy of good food, comfortable homes, shorter hours, higher wages, open-air life, universal education and political freedom. The case for progress by improved environment has received unexpected support from the deeds of Dominion armies, whose soldiers are the only ones in the world with a consistently and universally high standard of comfort. No better challenge could be offered to those pseudo-scientific pessimists who would determine the future of the race by a strained and non-human application of the laws of heredity. Whatever hereditarian dogmatism may say about the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest, Australia has demonstrated beyond question the supreme and infinite potentialities of social environment, and she is but on the threshold of the new order.

The most profound changes in outlook during the war must be dated from the referenda on Conscription in 1916 and 1917. By a considerable majority, the people rejected Conscription for overseas service on both occasions. Even the Anzacs largely voted against it. Thus the Australian army was the only volunteer force remaining at the end of the war. The numerous cross-currents of opinion and influence which the conscription issue set in motion make it difficult to analyse the results. But we may safely consider that, despite the selfish interests, the sentiment of women and bereaved

persons, the disloyal elements of Sinn Fein, the I.W.W., and other revolutionary or pacifist bodies, the largest single factor in the negative decision was the native repugnance of Australians to compulsory military service beyond the Commonwealth. That it was not due to general disloyalty or warweariness is shown by the crushing defeat of Labour in the Federal elections held in May, 1917, a few months after the first conscription referendum, when the newly-formed coalition of Liberals and conscriptionist Labourites, led by Mr. W. M. Hughes, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, gained a large majority. Labour fared similarly in all subsequent State elections, except in Queensland. These events showed that the vast majority of the Australian people remained the loyal, moderate Radicals that they were before the war.

Within the Labour Party itself, however, great changes were taking place. The split caused by the conscription controversy, when the Official Labour Party expelled the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), the Premier of New South Wales (Mr. W. A. Holman), and practically all the rest of their ablest leaders, has remained permanent. The changed temper and outlook of the Australian Labour Party will best be shown by a brief recital of Labour history during the war.* The two greatest strikes in the industrial history of Australia, the growing pacifism and revolutionism of Labour organisations and conferences, and the One Big Union movement are the salient evidences of this change.

Industrial Unrest During the War.

The new outlook was clearly reflected in the Labour Press, whose publications are, unfortunately, not of a very high order of journalism. Political organisation and concentration on party success at the polls have made the Australian Labour Party as prone to wire-pulling, intrigue and

*For the history of the Labour movement up to 1914, see Chapter 1V.

manoeuvring as the older parties. The quality of its candidates has steadily deteriorated in recent years. The war greatly strengthened all the influences making for industrial unrest and the advocacy of violent and disruptive measures.

66

*As a feature of our modern social system industrial unrest is more than a century old. Fundamentally, this unrest is the expression of the revolt of the wage-earning classes against conditions imposed upon them by capitalistic industrialism. The increasing concentration of workers and employers into highly organised and mutually hostile camps is indicative of that cleavage between the two great economic classes which the Socialist calls the class war." But such a broadly general statement hardly explains the special causes of industrial unrest within the last few years, and is still less helpful when we consider the temper and policy of the working class of Australia as recently displayed. Beyond question one of the causes of unrest is the rise in the cost of living. Since 1905 "effective wages" in Australia-allowing for cost of living and unemployment-have been either at a standstill or decreasing. the war they fell heavily.

During

The prevalent unrest, however, cannot be accounted for by these facts alone. The continued existence and violence of industrial disputes has proved puzzling to many obesrvers, even when resident in the Commonwealth. They point to the evident fact that the conditions of labour, including wages, are far more favourable to the worker in Australia than to his fellows in any other part of the world. The standard of comfort is admittedly high, the power of Unionism very great, all of which advantages are enhanced by excellent climatic conditions. Why, then, it is asked, should the workers be unsatisfied? Those who take this view fail to understand the present stage of development reached by the Labour movement in Australia, or

*See "Round Table," Australian article, December, 1916.

to give sufficient weight to the present policy of Labour. Many historical instances can be quoted to show that a period of prosperity and power is more likely to be a period of unrest than a time of sordid misery and destitution. The men most likely to rebel are those who find themselves arrested in their progress towards a higher standard. Such has been the position of the Australian worker in the last twelve years. Add to this the facts that popular education has raised the working class to at least a constantly progressing standard of knowledge, that industrial organisation and the acquisition of political power have given them possession of paramount authority, and we go far to account for the phenomenon. The Australian workers have passed beyond the stage at which they revolt against economic pressure almost without consciousness of its meaning, but simply from a vague understanding that the time has come to strike out for an improvement. Now they act from policy, with a deliberate and self-conscious endeavour, not merely to maintain the existing standard of life, but to elevate it by an indefinite number of increments to wages. This is clearly shown by the fact that most Wages Boards have to consider continual applications from the same industry for new awards. This tendency is accentuated by the fact that Trade Union secretaries now spend much of their time as advocates before Wages Boards, and are naturally inclined to justify their existence by working for fresh awards. This process maintains a more or less permanent state of friction between employers and workers. It may, indeed, be said that the peculiarly Australian method of bringing about industrial peace largely achieves the opposite end by inducing on both sides a highly organised system of offence and defence, which possibly makes as much for war as for peace. Moreover, it is not sufficiently remembered that whatever the machinery devised for industrial conciliation, if it does not fully satisfy one side or